back to article Stop this crazy crusade! Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon scold FCC over net neutrality

The world's largest internet companies lambasted the FCC in a formal filing today, telling America's telecom regulator to kill its plans to ditch net neutrality rules. In a lengthy 38‑page response [PDF], accompanied by a 45‑page economic analysis [PDF], the Internet Association – which represents Google, Facebook, Microsoft, …

  1. John Crisp

    Squeeze the lemon

    Not overly familiar with the status on the west side of the pond but I guess the ISPs will drop their investment if net neutrality is dropped.

    There'll be no need for more expensive infrastructure as they can just limit usage of what they have already by charging more.

    Infrastructure spending down. Consumption charges up.

    Ohhhh. Double bubble! Shareholders will love that.

    1. Donn Bly

      Re: Squeeze the lemon

      The internet grew and flourished without government intervention via the current net neutrality regulations. Investments in expensive infrastructure were made, broadband coverage expanded, speeds to consumers were increased, and life was good -- so to argue that without the regulations that it would all go away is to also argue that it doesn't already exist and that we are communicating over an illusion.

      The Internet started out as being funded through public dollars, but it grew through private investment in a free-market system. The NN rules changed the field, but the free-market system compensated and the Internet grew even DESPITE the government interference. Companies did leave the market because of NN and other regulation. That is a fact. However other companies started and expanded to more than compensate for that loss -- which is exactly how a free market is supposed to react.

      That said, there are some small parts of the NN regulations to which I am specifically opposed, such as the "no fast lanes" rules. I understand the ideology behind them, but they create artificial barriers that aren't really needed and drive innovations that need them outside of the sphere of the US, taking jobs and investment with them. However any game requires rules to establish a level playing field, and you don't need to agree with all of the rules in order to abide by them and play the game. The level playing field established by the rules that allows companies to interact and grow with a lower level of uncertainty is a far better alternative, has allowed businesses to overcome the negatives, and for that reason I am opposed to dropping them.

      Uncertainty is the real killer. Uncertainty is the difference between investment and speculation. Businesses and investors do both, but steady growth is more preferable.

  2. usbac Silver badge

    The fix is already in

    Everyone is just wasting a bunch of time and money trying to stop this. It's obvious to anyone that Pai is in the pocket of the large telcos. He's not going to go against the wishes of his corporate masters. They paid a lot of money to get his "support", he can't disappoint them...

    Since when has any elected official (and especially appointed ones) done anything good for consumers, and acted against their corporate masters?

    1. TaabuTheCat

      Re: The fix is already in

      Normally I'd agree with you, but Tom Wheeler (former FCC chair) actually tried to make things better for consumers and he's the reason Pai is now on this crusade. Who would have guessed it? Wheeler was a former high-ranking cable/telco guy and there was zero in his background that would have led you to believe he'd be anything but a shill for the cable companies. Turned about to be just the opposite, which must have infuriated his former masters.

      Pai? Yeah, he knows who signs the checks.

      1. Francis Boyle

        Re: The fix is already in

        "Since when has any elected official (and especially appointed ones) done anything good for consumers, and acted against their corporate masters?"

        There's a missing 'American' somewhere there. So many Americans seem to think that corporate capture is an inevitable fact of democracy rather than a feature of the dysfunctional US system.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The fix is already in

        "Wheeler was a former high-ranking cable/telco guy and there was zero in his background that would have led you to believe he'd be anything but a shill for the cable companies"

        Wheeler was Obama's fundraiser. Nothing in his background suggested he'd ever want to contradict Obama. And he didn't.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the land of the free nothing is free.

    1. quxinot

      In the land of the free noone is free.



      Imagine paying for cell-like limits on your home connection. Booo.

      Imagine a release of personal data for elected criminals congresspeople. Yay.

      Now, more realistically, look at your actual connection, and remember that these same twats help to keep the status quo that means you're running crapslow line because there's no incentive to add infrastructure on your side of the street.

      They fiddle. Got a match?

  4. bombastic bob Silver badge

    Foxes angry about dropping favorable henhouse rules?

    Keep in mind that with the ISPs being held to a high standard, and Google through Facebitch being given free reign to violate our privacy, that MAYBE this is one of those situations where those living in glass houses are the first to throw stones...

    Net Neutrality has _NEVER_ been about protecting the little guy. it's about protecting the existing "fiefdoms", and the fief-holders are FURIOUS that their stake is now threatened.

    Personally, I'd _LOVE_ to see paid prioritazation, so long as its limited to only a percentage of traffic (let' say 30%). Let the 'Netflix' providers pay a little extra to get their packets to your computer a bit faster than the spammers, torrents, and "all those ads" embedded in _EVERYTHING_ [along with the monolithic+inflated script libraries that run client-side]. Why not? Same with streaming TV [that might put cable and satellite TV "on notice"], and other services that have high bandwidth requirements.

    In any case, 'Net Neutrality' seeks to STOP that. That way, we can ALL be in the same "ghetto".

    Already, Microshaft is "stealing bandwidth" by using torrent-like file sharing amongst Win-10-nic machines, to spread their mandatory updates to the world. if ISPs decided to THROTTLE THAT, Microshaft is gonna be REALLY ANGRY, aren't they? Well, they shouldn't be STEALING the bandwidth in the FIRST place, I say!!!

    Because they call it 'Net Neutrality', it has an emotional effect on people that are unfamiliar with it. Then these "feelers" will ARGUE their FEELINGS with everyone else, not really knowing what's going on.

    And, companies like Google, Facebitch, Microsoft, etc. are CAPITALIZING on the number of people who've been _conditioned_ into FEELING instead of THINKING, over this issue that benefits THEM more than US in it's 2015 configuration.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: Foxes angry about dropping favorable henhouse rules?

      > Personally, I'd _LOVE_ to see paid prioritazation, so long as its limited to only a percentage of traffic (let' say 30%).

      Translation: I want everything to follow my set of ill-conceived, poorly thought-out and incoherent set of rules that I make up on a whim, out of thin air and with no trace of critical thinking or reference data. Preferably, after a few stiff drinks. Packet prioritization? I'm all for it, as long as doesn't affect me.

      Can you explain how you came up with this 30% magic percentage? Why 30% and not 33.333333%? How about 57.218334%?

      And the first step to MIGA - Make the Internet Great Again - is the swift dismantling of an existing set of reasoable rules that were established after a public debate, with expert input and after extensive consultations.

      That's how things work in Trump-Land.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Foxes angry about dropping favorable henhouse rules?

        Surely you mean, make the internet American again don't you?

        Frankly, I see no fair, or indeed workable, way of getting paid for or priorities bandwidth outside servers you directly control which doesn't help me much.

        Do you really want every internet hop costed and logged at packet level? do you want to break UDP so it has to be delivered by a fixed route? do you really want the NSA server to be the lowest cost route?

        No - this, once you dig into it, is scary technically, scary from a privacy/security perspective, and scary for many businesses who deliberately take no interest in how their services are hosted because the are not technical companies.

        I can also foresee the big few google, crapple, farcebook etc creating a sort of war at network level where you can't decide to use just one or none! pick one, just to get service.

        IMHO the whole idea is bonkers, has zero merit, and makes a rather complete and hard to escape corporate mess.

  5. Kev99 Silver badge

    The Trumpers are bought & paid for by their puppet-masters, so don't your breath, Google et al.

    1. quxinot

      The Trumpers are bought & paid for by their puppet-masters, so don't your breath, Google et al.

      While I agree entirely, I must ask.... The alternative is bought and paid for by someone else?

      Didn't think so. Sadly.

      It seems to me that internet connectivity should be run along with power (albeit not on the same lines, unless there's been some research that makes that more viable!) for all construction, new and old. The internet, in a shockingly short timeframe, has established itself as one of the wonders of the modern world (next to electricity and medicine), and should be treated as a basic right.

      Of course, while we're at it, I'd like to see DNS failures leading to redirected to <isp of choice's helpful search page> to be a criminal act also.

      And a pony. Everybody likes ponies.

      1. IT Poser

        Re: And a pony. Everybody likes ponies.

        Ponies are indeed tasty.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. ChrisPv

    Goobook vs Telcos

    The net neutrality is and was always Goobook vs Telcos. Who will get lion share of profits? As the former is the engine of US Economy and allowing it for cultural domination in the word, I actually surprised that Telcos got this so far. For US, abolishing net neutrality would be against national interest. On the other side, in abolishing net neutrality would be typical pro- home industry protectionism, but EU Telcos are not even able to lobby effectively.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Goobook vs Telcos

      Seems you are making too much money at work. Please hand over an extra 50% of your commute costs... why? Can't have you making all that money yourself. Your car/bus/shoe provider should get some of that...

      Oh your all for people charging extra when they see OTHER people making money... but how do you feel if it was done to you?

      NN stops the telcos/isp charging extra the same way it's illegal to ask you to pay more for your shoes because you got a bonus last week...

      1. Donn Bly

        Re: illegal to ask you to pay more for your shoes because you got a bonus last week...

        Are you sure about that? Asking me to pay more is EXACTLY how the American Income Tax system works. The more I make, the higher the percentage that they take.

  7. DerekCurrie

    The ISP/Telcos Ignore Incentives. They Just Want More Money.

    "Hal Singer's work that argues there has been a reduction in investment is "anecdotal" and "relies on simple year-on-year 6‑month period comparisons and only for a small set of companies." The result is not statistically significant."

    Not only that:

    In New York City the government has suffered from years of contention with Verizon, who has promised, promised, promised and NOT delivered an expansion of their coverage to citizens.

    Verizon was even provided with the incentive of an extra billing fee collected from customers designated to be applied to further expanding their coverage. Instead of applying that money as designated, Verizon simply ate it. How this was allowed or bungled legally, I cannot imagine. IMHO, this situation puts a stamp directly on Verizon as PARASITES. Of course Verizon fights to stop Real Net Neutrality. They just want more money for minimal effort. I consider this a definition of lazy and corrupt. Similar situations exist across the USA.

    There are plenty of superior telco/ISP companies who'd like Verizon's territory and would provide abundantly better service and expansion at a considerably lower cost.

  8. John 104


    Kudos to Netflix. They had a nice banner on the home page encouraging subscribers to write the FCC and tell them to knock it off. So I did. Looks like the big players were getting ready to do so as well, but I beat them to it, so there. :)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like